Women won’t have sex with you if they know you’re a Red Pill douchebag, Red Pill douchebag warns

Women discovering that the dude hitting on them reads The Red Pill subreddit

Apparently the first rule of Red Pill Club is to never talk about Red Pill Club in the vicinity of some hot babe you want to get with, because the chances are good that she already knows about Red Pill Club and if she finds out you’re a member of it she might start laughing at what a gigantic loser you are.

At least that seems to be the point of one dire warning I found on the front page of the Red Pill subreddit today.

Noting that “most women who frequently use the internet have at least a vague idea what [The Red Pill] is,” One_friendship_plz urged his fellow Red Pillers to never, ever let their Red Pillery “leak” in the presence of a woman because “it makes you come off as more pathetic than a beta.”

You don’t say.

And while a “genuine slut” won’t care how much of a pathetic woman-hating douchebag you are, he goes on to argue,

any half-brained woman knows about TRP. I would say an equal number of women know about the red pill as men, quit trying to come off as unique by spouting shit from here to women about how enlightened you are on the sexual dynamic.

I know a lot of men on here are bitter as f**k, but do not ever appear to be misogynistic to women if you’re trying to get laid.

Shocking, but true. Women tend not to like it when men they don’t know greet them in the club with a hearty “hey, genuine sluts!”

They will take your resources and still be your friend, but they will write you off from the “have sex” list.

NEVER LET A WOMAN GET HER FILTHY HANDS ON YOUR RESOURCES!

For example, if you have manganese deposits in your backyard, don’t ever let her see that shit! Put a tarp over them, or something.

Now, One_friendship_plz doesn’t actually say anything about manganese, per se, but this is something I personally learned the hard way — when I caught a woman I thought was my girlfriend digging for manganese in my backyard with the help of none other than Chad Thundercock himself!

By the way, “digging for manganese in my backyard” isn’t some weird sexual euphemism. Though maybe it should be.

Anyway, back to One_friendship_plz and his stunning insights.

[H]undreds of thousands of women, easily millions know about PUA, MGTOW, TRP. They don’t understand our perspective but they … consciously stay away from anyone associated with this …

Women do not want to have sex with people who they think are from TRP, even if you’re not.. if it seems like you are, then they won’t f**k you. (Even if they’ll be your friend.)

The real takeaway from all this? If you’re going to be a douchebag, make sure you’re a douchebag to dudes as well.

Those douches you see who f**k women, treat everyone like shit & not women exclusively so they never leak off as misogynistic, which is why they still get laid.

Wisdom for the ages!

I made a card out of it. Well, tried to. The text was too long. Hopefully this captures the essence:

Comments

Not sure if you’re an MRA that sounds like a movie supervillain or someone parodying MRAs that sound like movie supervillains. Poe’s Law in action!

@bz

I reckon women like to think there is a great amount of pressure on them to look good and to be pointed out that mediocre looking, overweight girls with mundane personalities are hooking up with good looking, fit dudes easily, flies in the face of what they’re told about the importance of female beauty.

Something tells me that those “mediocre looking, overweight girls with mundane personalities” have a lot more worth than you’re giving them credit for. Also, do yourself a favor and get a hold of Killing Us Softly, preferably the latest version. You might not agree with everything said in the movie, but you’ll find afterwards that the pressure on women to look good isn’t something women make up for the sake of a victim complex.

Alan, your informative comment on Stannary issues in Cornwall reminded me. I was reading recently about the Late Bronze Age Collapse, which involved the sudden collapse of just about every eastern Mediterranean civilization. One of the aftershocks was the increasing use of iron; the trade routes that had brought tin from Everywhere Else were abandoned. Can’t have bronze without tin (arsenic just isn’t the same), and iron ore is relatively common.

I imagined the proto-Cornish miners waiting, waiting, year after year, until they finally accepted that the funny-sounding foreigners were not coming back. Meanwhile, the Mycenaean cities were being abandoned and the Egyptian Middle Kingdom collapsed.

It would be interesting to do some genetic analysis down here. I suspect a lot of the Cornish are the funny sounding foreigners; or at least have Mediterranean antecedents.

It’s easy now to imagine Cornwall as quite isolated, but in the times of the great sea roads it was quite the hub. There’s archaeological evidence that Cornwall has links to the Mediterranean civilisations dating back at least 8,000 years.

The Salisbury burials show that half the people who lived in the area were born outside the British Isles. I wouldn’t be surprised if there had been a similar thing going on down here.

(You do see a lot of what seems to be Med heritage in folks down here but that might be an Armada thing)

Then we have to deal with shithead dudes assuming that “casual sex” means “I’ll fuck anyone who asks without question” and then face abuse from those shitheads when we turn them down, then the stigma of being a “slut” for daring to want to have sex instead of keeping our legs closed “like a good girl should” and then being harassed and abused by other shitheads who think they can police who women fuck or interact with.

I don’t think most cishet dudes (let alone TRPers) really understand what women go through, and just hand-wave it away as being “easy” because for them, dating is so hard because reasons, and that’s what they want to focus on. How hard their life is. Instead of having a little bit of empathy for others.

I would encourage dudes like you to actually fucking talk to women instead of dropping all your half-assed assumptions in here like a watery turd.

I reckon women like to think there is a great amount of pressure on them to look good

So, you’d go out with a woman who didn’t look good? Who didn’t bother to shave her legs, put on makeup, wear nice clothes, or do all the other things that women are supposed to do to be considered “acceptable” to date?

Because somehow I doubt it.

and to be pointed out that mediocre looking, overweight girls with mundane personalities are hooking up with good looking, fit dudes easily, flies in the face of what they’re told about the importance of female beauty.

Or perhaps that those of us who are “mediocre looking, overweight” or those of us with “mundane personalities” are too busy finding our worth on our own instead of putting our faith in assholes who are too busy bemoaning the fact that they can’t sleep with a Victoria’s Secret model?

Perhaps we’re off actually dating people who like us? And perhaps other women are more than okay with that, and the people who really have a problem with it are people like TRPers, who think that those of us who can’t please their boners don’t deserve to have sex or be happy?

So yeah, as a guy, even if its obvious to you how uneven the playing field is in the hook up/ casual sex culture, you’re better off not talking about it.

Or perhaps you should talk about it, and maybe gain some insight into how “the other side” lives for a bit, instead of making baseless, silly assumptions about how “easy” women have it because we’re fucking and dating and having relationships with people above what you think our league is.

@Jen
I’ll keep the routine thing in mind, I wish you the best of luck on your endeavors.
@EJ (The Other One)
Thank you for the support, and the offer for a helping hand. I’ll keep my survival in front of my mind.
@Kat
There are walk in therapists at my school, hopefully they aren’t too busy whenever I have the time to come in.
@Mish
Thank you for that, it’s always good to know that I should ignore those sorts of comments.

I’m hoping to go either in Environmental Science or Accounting, after my, blunder, the other dream of Marine Biology is pretty much done for.
@Scildfreja
Thank you for the offer to talk and the support
@Dalillama
Well I now have at least the knowledge that I don’t have to feel lost, hopeless and helpless.

Ooh, a sad boner troll? We haven’t had one of those in awhile. I hope he’s not a drive by because sad boner trolls are the second best chew toys. The first best being MGTOW of course.

The core belief of the red pill philosophy is that the sexual market is heavily in favor of women.

Red pill is not a philosophy. Calling it a philosophy doesn’t make it so. At least you are correct in labeling red pill belief rather than fact. Points for that!

I’m going to have ask that you define sexual market and that you tell me your criteria for determining who it favors. Do you take into account the risks versus benefits of casual sex for men and women? Or is your sole criteria “can pick up some random person?” Explain your reasoning for your choice and tell me how you measure it. If you’re going to view relationships and sex as an economic or a scientific model, than you’re actually going to have to back your shit up. As I said, just because you’ve declared something, doesn’t make it so. I’d also like you to account for people who are not straight. Do they fit into your model, or are you just pretending they don’t exist?

If a man were to say that finding casual sex is really easy for the average plain jane, then I think most women would take offense, as it cheapens their sexual experiences.

I don’t know what you mean by that last part. I think you’re trying to say that the only motive for having casual sex is to enhance your social status so if you say that it’s easy for women to get laid, then for women, it’s less of an impressive accomplishment for women to have sex than it would be for poor, poor you who has to work for it.

There’s one giant problem with this hypothesis. Not everyone views sex as a transaction. Some people have sex for love, some have sex for money, some have sex for fun. These motives aren’t even mutually exclusive.

Do I even need to seriously address that you think the trope that men are all perpetually horny and always looking to get laid while women are the sexual gatekeepers is some sort of big truth bomb? That’s precious. This isn’t some new revelation that the brave philosopher kings to the red pill came up with. This is the oldest stereotype ever. You can find it in fundamentalist religious sects. You can find it all over pop culture. You can find it everywhere. Stop acting like you’re a member of fight club. It’s beyond pathetic.

Also, how are you defining “average plain Jane?” Is the definition consistent over time and across cultures? How do subcultures with different beauty standards than the main cultural norm fit into your model? How do you account for individual taste?

I reckon women like to think there is a great amount of pressure on them to look good and to be pointed out that mediocre looking, overweight girls with mundane personalities are hooking up with good looking, fit dudes easily, flies in the face of what they’re told about the importance of female beauty.

Again, how are you measuring the hotness vs. ugliness of men and women here? I mean some sort of objective measurement. Your boner is not an acceptable measure. What data do you have to support the hypothesis that ugly or mediocre women are hooking up with hot guys? The data should come from somewhere other than the University of Assfax’s Boner Notes Department. Where is the actual data from an accredited university or a government agency?

This is a more of a personal question. Do you find it at all hypocritical that you’re claiming that the pressure on women to look good is imaginary while in the very same sentence complaining about women you don’t deem sufficiently attractive having any kind of sex life? Do you have even a speck of self awareness?

So yeah, as a guy, even if its obvious to you how uneven the playing field is in the hook up/ casual sex culture, you’re better off not talking about it.

Obvious to you does not equal true. You are not an objective observer. I could just as easily say that it’s harder for women because we’re expected to know how to flirt just enough to indicate that we’re interested in a man but without coming off too slutty or forward. That’s actually not such an easy task. I’m shit at flirting and guess what? When I was young, thin and cute, I still was not covered in suitors. In fact, the only time I ever got dates was with guys that I met or interacted with at parties because I need the assistance of alcoholic beverages to be uninhibited enough to flirt. At least it’s socially acceptable for men to just be direct and straightforward. That take less social skill than flirting even though risking rejection is scary.

I could also easily say it’s harder for women because we’re at greater risk for partner violence and rape when we get involved with men. Cis women also have to worry about birth control and pregnancy. Cis men do not.

My point isn’t that dating is super easy for men but difficult for women BTW. My point is that it kind of sucks for everyone. That’s why happily partnered people of all genders and orientations so often express relief that they don’t have to deal with the dating scene. Your problem is that your assuming that your problems = the only problems.

Oh, and one last thing. I’m not doing research for a drive by troll, but if you come back, I can provide ample evidence that women are under a shit ton of pressure to look good. Not just with regard to dating but with regard to every aspect of life. We’ll see if you’re up to tangling with us. I’m guessing no.

Also, regarding bz (and anyone else who uses the term “overweight”), I’m *assuming* that they’re referring to size and not the number on the scale–after all, we don’t go around stepping on scales in front of everybody.
(I’m saying this as someone who weighs a lot but does not look it.)

The core belief of the red pill philosophy is that the sexual market is heavily in favor of women.

If a man were to say that finding casual sex is really easy for the average plain jane, then I think most women would take offense, as it cheapens their sexual experiences.

I reckon women like to think there is a great amount of pressure on them to look good and to be pointed out that mediocre looking, overweight girls with mundane personalities are hooking up with good looking, fit dudes easily, flies in the face of what they’re told about the importance of female beauty.

So yeah, as a guy, even if its obvious to you how uneven the playing field is in the hook up/ casual sex culture, you’re better off not talking about it.

Executive summary
This guy can’t get laid. According to him, it’s hard even for good-looking guys with great personalities (like him) to get laid. Meanwhile, even women who are fat and ugly and have terrible personalities get to have sex. But this guy wouldn’t dare say that out loud. He couldn’t, for example, say that in the comments section of a feminist blog.

Whether men experience anything like the pressures women do to look attractive, there is some evidence that women are more critical of men’s appearance than men are of women’s and less attracted to the opposite sex in general.

How representative are OKcupid users of the general population? The mere fact its user base is people attempting to date using the site rather than real world interaction might suggest that they’re atypical? I don’t know.

How popular is online dating now compared to the ‘old fashioned’ ways? Maybe it is representative, but that’s what I mean when I say *I* would need more info.

I’d treat the data with the same scepticism as if someone had asked “what do you look for in a hobby?” on a video games discussion board. That might skew towards thing associated with video games and it probably wouldn’t correctly identify that the most popular hobby in the UK is angling.

So I’d be inclined to take that survey with a pinch of salt in terms of general application.

Holy hell, that article is biased. I mean, yeah, according to those numbers, women rate most men as less than “medium” on their attractive scale while men rate most women as “medium”. However, even though men seem to be more generous in terms of their ratings, they’re far less generous in terms of who they’ll actually talk to. The charts show men messaging by and large only the women at the highest end of the scale whereas women will message mostly men at the lowest end of the scale.

The same holds true throughout the charts. Men have much higher standards for who they’ll talk to.

Also, what the actual fuck is up with posting photos of guys at the office and being all “boo hoo these totally decent-looking guys were rated less than medium feeeeemales are so meeeannnnnnnn”? It’s just so illustrative of these toxic attitudes. Women might rate them as less than medium, but the article’s own numbers show that women would probably still be perfectly willing to talk to them, unlike men with women they’d rated less than medium.

Further, there’s conspicuously no examples of women around the office who were rated less than medium but who the writer thinks are totally decent-looking (bolded so you know it must be true, I guess). Is it that there are no women around the OKCupid offices? Is it that the dude who wrote the article agrees with the attractiveness of the women who were rated less than medium?

I could go on forever. There are a ton of questions I’d love to ask, some of which may not be answerable. How do men vs. women present themselves in photos? How do men vs. women evaluate their own attractiveness? How attractive are people on OKCupid compared to the general population? How attractive do men vs. women have to consider themselves before being willing to make an OKCupid profile?

TL;DR I wouldn’t consider that article evidence of anything except that writer’s ability to draw a completely unwarranted conclusion from a set of data.

In the section where the author is whining about the guys at the office who are totally decent-looking being rated below medium, he actually concludes that women have unrealistic standards about male attractiveness based solely on the fact that he thinks those guys are totally decent-looking. Apparently “unrealistic” is defined as “doesn’t concur with my personal preferences”.

The difficulty of “getting laid” (which I interpret as a one night stand or other kinds of casual sex) depends on how many people in your target group would be personally open to that sort of thing. Many people never have a one night stand for all kinds of reasons. They might be shy, have safety concerns, enjoy kinks that don’t work well with a one time partner, have no particular desire for sex with relative strangers, personal ethical reasons, religious beliefs, don’t enjoy sex at all, etc. If someone is not up for sex you’re not gonna have sex with them, no matter who you are (keeping in mind that rape is not sex).

In my experience, many of the manboys who complain about how difficult it is for men to “get laid” aren’t actually trying to participate in that kind of activity. They just assume it would be impossible, so why even try? I think it’s obvious from the whinings of MRAs, MGTOWs, PUAs and other misogynists that they don’t have much experience even talking to women or being in the same room as a woman. They have fantastical ideas about the minds and bodies of women, and even more fantastical ideas about what a woman’s daily routine looks like.

They have not only given up on interacting with women, but they’ve also given up on being a decent human being. Without making any attempt to be nice and decent, they’ve decided that it’s too difficult and the deck is stacked against them.

I say this as someone who has never had “casual sex” and probably never will. When I was a teenager I had some level of resentment for people who would hook up with randos, since that kind of behavior can seem threatening to someone who has low self-esteem and insecurities about their self-worth, and I interpreted those feelings as warped jealousy based on my belief that I was simply dealt bad cards and couldn’t possibly do what those people were doing.

Later on, after I’d had a long term relationship, I realized that I didn’t actually know if I could “get laid” or not. I had never tried, and when I thought of the idea of having sex with a relative stranger I felt very uncomfortable and nervous. After realizing that I just wasn’t very interested in “casual sex”, life became a whole lot easier. Instead of thinking of the hookup culture people as a club for cool people to which I don’t have access, I started viewing it as a thing that some people participate in and enjoy, and others don’t, for whatever reason.

Shaking off the burden of thinking (consciously or subconsciously) of women’s bodies as luxury resources that only the most fortunate men are allowed access to, makes life so much easier. Personally, I found that escaping the teenage bubble of insecurities made me easier to get along with, more relaxed and confident, more likeable, and just in general a better and less selfish person.

Speaking of what benefits feminism can have for men*, ^this^ is a specific benefit that I personally have enjoyed through understanding and adopting basic feminist thinking. When you’re not constantly obsessing over who’s having sex with whom or trying to figure out ways to manipulate and abuse women, you don’t have any reason to spend most of your time online yelling about manginas and white knights. People with this kind of behavior are clearly lacking any form of inner peace and doing everything in their might to avoid examining their own motivations.

And yeah, an OK Cupid blog post is not very scientific. The author draws the completely unsupported conclusion that if a woman rates a man as lower than medium, she thinks he’s not good enough for her.

I didn’t see anything suggesting that. I see no data on how people rate themselves. A lot of women think they’re ugly, even when they aren’t. Nor do I see any data on how high a priority users are making looks.

Bryce, when you find yourself in agreement with a troll, you should probably stop to consider the possibility that you’re doing something wrong.

Exactly. I wonder if anyone has ever done a survey asking only people who actively seek hookups how many partners they have had. I tend to think that most people who try to have casual sex, have a higher number of partners than the general population. No matter what they look like.

We also can’t assume that if a man is turned down for casual sex, that the woman thinks he’s ugly and would’ve said yes to Chad Thundercock. Maybe men are just more likely to hit on women who have not indicated that they’re looking for casual sex with anyone.

I lost interest in OKC’s silly little pop psych polls when they went from: “most of the people who identify as bi on our website will mostly or exclusively interact with other members from only one of the two genders we allow users to choose; i.e. a bi man might interact mostly with women, or with other men, but is unlikely to interact equally with both,” to “I guess people who call themselves bi are mostly a bunch of lying liars! Haha.” And a big fuck you to you too, OkCupid!

@Alan
In addition to your points, the OKC surveys are completely optional and you have to seek them out. It’s possible there might be a required survey when you sign up (I don’t remember), but for the most part they were part of this optional area you could check out. And I remember reading a post where they did some data analysis and decided that the 3 factors in how successful your relationship would be were whether you like beer, whether you like to travel alone, and I forgot the third one. Because of the people who took their survey the 3 questions the successful couples answered the same way were those 3. It made me wonder if they’re only looking at the successful couples, if they’re only looking at the questions answered the same way, and how representative their participants are. Plus they jump to a conclusion based on some correlations, which is not very scientific of them, either.

Internet surveys are only useful for validating the opinions you already hold. They’s garbage. @IP’s opinion is a waaay more solid foundation to work from. ’cause it’s IP, so, you know. Way more trustworthy than the sausage-aggregator-and-delivery-system which is OkCupid.

I wonder if anyone has ever done a survey asking only people who actively seek hookups how many partners they have had. I tend to think that most people who try to have casual sex, have a higher number of partners than the general population. No matter what they look like.

As someone (cis woman) who did have a lot of casual sex, this sounds about right. Only one data point, but hey, you gotta start somewhere! And even back in the day (ack! 30 years ago) on my best day, I wasn’t ever going to be mistaken for a swimsuit model!

We also can’t assume that if a man is turned down for casual sex, that the woman thinks he’s ugly and would’ve said yes to Chad Thundercock. Maybe men are just more likely to hit on women who have not indicated that they’re looking for casual sex with anyone.

Also true for my case. My main criteria for hookups were feeling safe with the person, feeling like there was mutual respect, feeling like there was mutual attraction, and feeling like that person would be fun in bed. I hooked up with more than a few guys I would’ve rejected on looks alone; and that would’ve been my loss!

And yes, I felt that I had to be careful not to blatantly indicate that I was looking for casual sex!

I have always been reserved and somewhat conservative in my personal behavior (although I don’t expect the same of friends, in fact I find less reserved people much more interesting). Anyways, at the end of my freshman year in college I decided I would cut loose and make out with a random guy at a party (a fairly common past time for some of my teammates). Casual hook-up is definitely something that takes practice. I was so bad at it, for example, that not only did the guy not kiss me that night, we ended up married.

I think IP hit the nail on the head when they said that it’s not about having sex, so much as about gaining the male homosocial status that it implies. There’s a reason why pickup artists and “incels” are so hateful towards one another.

Holy hell, that article is biased. I mean, yeah, according to those numbers, women rate most men as less than “medium” on their attractive scale while men rate most women as “medium”. However, even though men seem to be more generous in terms of their ratings, they’re far less generous in terms of who they’ll actually talk to. The charts show men messaging by and large only the women at the highest end of the scale whereas women will message mostly men at the lowest end of the scale.
The same holds true throughout the charts. Men have much higher standards for who they’ll talk to.
Also, what the actual fuck is up with posting photos of guys at the office and being all “boo hoo these totally decent-looking guys were rated less than medium feeeeemales are so meeeannnnnnnn”? It’s just so illustrative of these toxic attitudes. Women might rate them as less than medium, but the article’s own numbers show that women would probably still be perfectly willing to talk to them, unlike men with women they’d rated less than medium.

My take on it is that because there aren’t many males rated ‘3’, ‘4’ or ‘5’ , the majority falling within a narrow 0-2 range, the differences in attractiveness between men are considered less significant (since most are unattractive). Women who took part were more than likely aware how unrealistic it would be to only message a minority of above-average looking male profiles. Men on the other hand see a higher number of women they consider above average and end up thinking they might have chance there. It implies men aren’t as realistic, rate their own attractiveness higher than they should do, or fail to consider women having their own preferences.

Doesn’t change the fact that most of us are considered well below average, assuming this has some credibility. And appearances are obviously a big factor when being considered for casual hook-ups. For red pillers who talk about sex as an indicator of ‘social value’ this is a big deal.

Now there is an idea here. There is already the inch, the foot, so why not the boner ? That could become the “mètre étalon” (arh arh ! … hum, sorry) of “TRP female attractiveness” (because women is too polite of a word to be used, and there is obviously no homosexual or transexual men in the TRP).
I suggest you make a patent of that, you could make a lot of money, as they speak about that all day long (between two rants against feminism).
So, maybe HB10 is not Hot Babe 10, but 10 Huge Boners ? That would explain a lot…

Bryce,
You are making wild guesses when you could be listening.
Might it be that you are not winning over the ladies as often as youd like because this is typical behavior for you and the sexism in your assumptions here extends to other areas of your life and that is more than a little off putting to us women?

That ‘HB’ scale is obviously subjective (also, is it linear or logarithmic?). However Arthur C Clarke did once try to apply some objective criteria to this pressing issue.

He started from the fact that Helen of Troy was so beautiful she was responsible for the launch of a thousand ships. So all you need to do is establish how many ships a particular woman could get launched and that would provide a measurement. He proposed a unit; ‘the milli-helen’. That would be the quantum of attractiveness that could get one ship launched. And then you just worked from there.

Now as Arthur described his own sexuality as “mildly cheerful” it may be he didn’t have that big an interest in this particular discussion, so perhaps we should take his suggestion with a pinch of salt. Still makes more sense than all that HB/SMV nonsense though.

I’ve come across the milliHelen before and I’ve got issues with it. Specifically, there is no SI definition of “ship.”

This is the sort of ship that Homer wrote about.

This is the sort of ship that we have nowadays.

Even someone who is not a maritime engineer can see that it would be harder to launch a thousand of the second sort of ship than the first. Homer says that people in our later degenerate age do not have the strength and beauty that they did in the time of heroes. I think he’s missing the point: we’ve just gotten better at building ships, and this has impacted our measurement system.

I’m not a sciencey person but I’m pretty poor, so I’ve got a different issue with the milli-Helen.

What if I would definitely launch ships if I had them in the first place* ? Also, what if my launching of said ships was based on something other than physical attractiveness ? Does the measure still apply ?

Besides, what if I know for a fact that the person in question isn’t the sort to take too kindly to ships being launched for them ? ’cause then it’d be much smarter to not launch them at all. Does this then nullify their milli-Helen value ?

*I can probably afford to buy a thousand sheets of paper and make boats or planes out of them though. I’d definitely do that.

Donate to the Mammoth!

We Hunted the Mammoth is an ad-free, reader-supported publication written and published by longtime journalist David Futrelle, who has been tracking, dissecting, and mocking the growing misogynistic backlash since 2010, exposing the hateful ideologies of Men’s Rights Activists, incels, alt-rightists and many others.

We depend on support from people like you. Please consider a donation or a monthly pledge by clicking below! there's no need for a PayPal account.

Send comments, questions, and tips for stories to me at dfutrelle@gmail.com, or by clicking here